Memorandum by the Labour Party (VOT 37)
The following comments were first submitted
to the Electoral Commission's consultation paper on Electoral
Registration that culminated in their report in May 2003 "The
electoral register process".
The submission is the product of consultations
principally among the party's professional staff but also with
our legal advisors with specific expertise in this area.
1. FUNDAMENTALS
1.1 Real reform and progress in modernising
electoral registration depends upon a functioning national register.
Until that is achieved then major changes to the process may be
premature and indeed may prove to be incompatible with whatever
form that national register takes.
1.2 We therefore believe that there are
two levels to any modernisation of the process. Firstly an incremental
review to address particular problems with the existing system
and secondly a more fundamental review of the basis of registration
in the context of the enhanced technical possibilities arising
from a national computerised register.
1.3 Thus a shift to individual registration
should be considered as part of a longer-term reform given the
huge upheaval and potential administrative difficulties and costs
that would be involved in the transitional process.
1.4 In particular we are concerned that
any shift to individual registration would lead to an immediate
fall in registration levels with young voters in particular likely
to drop off. Therefore while in the long-term we have no principled
objection to such a shift it should be phased in and integrated
fully into a national electoral register.
1.5 We do though believe that the "household"
system could be strengthened. For example there could be stronger
sanction on householders to return the form and to ensure the
information is accurate.
1.6 We are concerned that any shift to individual
registration will lead to an immediate fall in registration levels
with young voters in particular likely to drop off. While in the
long-term we have no principled objection to such a shift, we
believe it would require wholly new and robust processes and safeguards.
1.7 We do not believe there should be a
general requirement of additional proof of identification to be
registered, but as part of a shift to a national register we would
assume that a system would be developed whereby an individual
elector required a unique portable electoral number similar to
a National Insurance number. Clearly there may be scope for additional
information to be stored on that database (contingent with data
protection) some of which it may be appropriate to make available
publicly and indeed include on the register.
2. MANAGING THE
REGISTER
2.1 We believe that a national body, the
Electoral Commission or a committee under its auspices—should
be charged with responsibility for maintaining a national electoral
register.
2.2 We do believe that local authorities
should remain responsible for compiling that register and for
its accuracy in their own area, given their access to alternative
data sources, their local knowledge and experience and their status
as the principal user of the data. The Commission however should
be responsible for the technical specifications of the register
and they should be mandatory on local authorities, given that
national registration is partly necessitated by the exigencies
of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act.
2.3 We would welcome the further development
of telephone and on-line registration, provided that it was secure
against potential fraud.
3. CREATING THE
REGISTER
3.1 We believe the annual canvass will continue
to be necessary, at least until there are comprehensive changes
to the process associated with individual registration as described
above.
3.2 Indeed we believe that the Electoral
Commission should lay down and monitor basic standards of canvass
to which local authorities must adhere if they are to have discharged
their responsibilities, alongside sanctions to ensure compliance.
3.3 We believe that pure "daily"
rolling registration while superficially desirable may be impractical.
3.4 We would be cautious about removing
the right of appeal against registration as a safeguard against
potential fraud. While we believe this is a marginal problem,
in some areas it may be significant and we do not believe the
marginal administrative benefits of removing it would outweigh
the potential dangers.
3.5 We believe that close of nominations
should be the very latest cut-off date for registration for a
particular election—other than possibly in the case of a
clear and demonstrable administrative error. It is an important
principle that the electorate for a particular election should
be essentially known and fixed for the period of the formal legal
campaign.
4. SECURITY ISSUES
4.1 We believe that in principle registration
should be compulsory whether in terms of the duty on the householder
under the current system or on the individual under a reformed
system.
4.2 We believe that anonymous registration
should be available for those with a fear for their personal security.
However we believe that it is important for the democratic process
that the register should be open to scrutiny for those who have
legitimate electoral and other purposes.
Therefore we believe that such registration
should be very much the exception and may require certification
by an appropriate public authority eg police, social services
or a bona fide charity eg women's refuge.
5. UNDER REGISTRATION
5.1 We believe that data sharing should
be made more systematic particularly within different parts of
local authorities and with other public establishments such as
schools both for accuracy and verification.
5.2 We do support the introduction of a
formal performance monitoring system on registration rates, alongside
the stipulations on standards of canvass described above—for
example at least two calls on each non-responding property at
different times of the day. Moreover would support more consistent
standards on carry-over of names from non-responding households
which we believe is a major source of under-registration.
6. MARKED REGISTER
6.1 We believe in principle that marked
register information should be made available as a matter of course
both for absent voters and for those who have attended polling
stations. It acts as a valuable assistance to detecting administrative
problems, fraud and to effective campaigning. We see no issues
of data protection over and above the rights already available
to candidates and agents.
| 
